No, it does not. I would relish having a discussion with a level playing
field in which all players were expected to present their ideas along with
all of the negative evidence. I do not agree with Steve that one piece of
(negative) evidence disqualifies many studies done by very prominent Indian
scientists, especially when the negative report was done by Bose, who was
an advocate for the Cambrian interpretation of the deposit. There were any
number of Indian paleobotanists of international reputation who were
certain that the deposit was Eocene, based upon many many very careful
studies.
Steve freely admits he plays by different standards. It seems to me your
comments should be directed to those who make no pretense of presenting a
balanced picture. I genuinely believe the Indian problem remains an
enigma. I do not believe it is Eocene pollen in the Cambrian. I believe
it is an unexplained anomaly. So Steve jumped to conclusions when he told
me what I was saying.
>
>I also cannot accept the idea that two groups of scientists advancing their
>theses, without regard to an honest search within the two camps to determine
>whether their thesis is correct, helps science advance. The tone of your
>statement here reminds me very much of when I coached competitive high school
>and college debate. Because a person had to be both the affirmative and the
>negative during a tournament, he is forced to take positions he disagrees
with.
>In the confines of that game, the only way to defend a position that you
don't
>agree with is to quote selectively from the evidence and be disingenuous. But
>that was a game, and the goal was to win, not to discern which position is
>true. Is it really your position that two sides, both acting
disingenuously and
>selectively reporting the evidence, somehow advances science? Who is to
act as
>the judge in this contest?
No. That is not my position.
>
>I would argue that not only can a person advocate a thesis without
selectively
>reporting the evidence, but that if that person wants his thesis to be an
>accurate representation of reality, he or she MUST consider the totality
of the
>evidence. What else are we left with? Do you consciously ignore contrary
>evidence and advance the thesis regardless of it? It seems to me that this is
>the reverse of how scientists should operate. Rather than picking a thesis to
>advance and then reporting whatever evidence can be made to seem as though it
>supports that thesis, one should look at the evidence and then develop a
thesis
>that explains it. I'm not arguing for some sort of pure objectivity among
>scientists, of course, but I think there is a realistic middle ground between
>that and what you appear to be advocating, the notion that two opposing camps
>acting in a disingenuous manner somehow advances science toward the correct
>conclusion.
There is a conflict between expediency and accuracy that is particularly
the domain of the listserve. I fall into this trap and I am probably not
alone. Writing formal position papers alleviates this problem, but does
not allow for the dynamic of interacting in real time. Sometimmes I choose
expediency when I should stick to accuracy. I am probably not alone.
Thanks for your well thought-out comments.
Art
http://geology.swau.edu